Absence of service records cannot justify denying retiral benefits if identically situated employees have received such dues.

The petitioner was appointed as a Mechanic (Grade-III) in the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited on May 19, 1976.

His services were subsequently transferred to the Bihar Fruits and Vegetables Development Corporation Limited and later deputed to the Bihar State Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Limited (BHPC), where he was absorbed on January 6, 2001.

He superannuated on June 30, 2008.

Despite his retirement, the petitioner was not paid gratuity for the period between May 26, 1976, and January 7, 1985, nor was he paid Dearness Allowance/Compulsory Deductions for the period between March 1, 1976, and January 7, 1985.

The State contended that records were unavailable because the Tractor Project where the petitioner worked had been seized by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority.

The State cited Resolution No. 52 (dated March 14, 2018) and Resolution No. 132 (dated June 20, 2018), which stipulate that terminal dues are the liability of the department from which the employee retired, subject to audit verification.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of gratuity and Dearness Allowance for the service rendered prior to his absorption in BHPC, in light of the fact that identically situated employees have received such benefits.

2. Whether the lack of records due to administrative seizure justifies the denial of legally accrued post-retiral benefits.

Government Resolution No. 52 (dated 14.03.2018) and Resolution No. 132 (dated 20.06.2018), which establish that employees of public undertakings adjusted into different departments shall have their dues settled by the concerned department where they retired.

The Court also applied the principle of Parity/Article 14 of the Constitution, implying that the petitioner cannot be discriminated against if identically situated persons listed in Letter No. 452 (dated 08.10.1983) were granted similar benefits.

The Court noted that the petitioner has been deprived of benefits despite repeated persuasion, while other employees whose names appeared in the same transition list (Letter No. 452) had already received their outstanding dues.

The Court found that there was no laches on the part of the petitioner.

It implicitly rejected the State’s defense regarding the "unavailability of records" as a valid ground for withholding benefits, especially when other employees from the same project were paid.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was transitioned through various state-controlled corporations and finally absorbed by the State power corporation, his entitlements must be verified and settled by the current administrative authority in line with the established resolutions.

The Court held that if other identically situated employees have been allowed these benefits, the same must be accorded to the petitioner within eight weeks of receipt of the order, provided there is no other legal impediment.